A trial judge's interventions during a prosecution opening that transform it into a 'workshop exercise' — by asking questions, seeking clarification, and engaging in dialogue with the prosecutor about the evidence — can create an appearance of alignment with the prosecution case that, when compounded by further interventions during witness examination and an unbalanced jury charge, constitutes a substantial miscarriage of justice. Judicial restraint should extend to counsel's addresses, with any necessary intervention occurring in the absence of the jury. On unreasonable verdict appeals, conflicts between a co-offender's evidence and other witnesses that are peripheral to the primary fact in issue (here, the existence of an agreement) are credit issues for the jury and do not compel reasonable doubt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.